1. Field
The present disclosure relates to computer systems and methods in which data resources are shared among data consumers while preserving data integrity and consistency relative to each consumer. More particularly, the disclosure concerns an implementation of a mutual exclusion mechanism known as “read-copy update” in an energy-efficient computing environment.
2. Description of the Prior Art
By way of background, read-copy update (also known as “RCU”) is a mutual exclusion technique that permits shared data to be accessed for reading without the use of locks, writes to shared memory, memory barriers, atomic instructions, or other computationally expensive synchronization mechanisms, while still permitting the data to be updated (modify, delete, insert, etc.) concurrently. The technique is well suited to both uniprocessor and multiprocessor computing environments wherein the number of read operations (readers) accessing a shared data set is large in comparison to the number of update operations (updaters), and wherein the overhead cost of employing other mutual exclusion techniques (such as locks) for each read operation would be high. By way of example, a network routing table that is updated at most once every few minutes but searched many thousands of times per second is a case where read-side lock acquisition would be quite burdensome.
The read-copy update technique implements data updates in two phases. In the first (initial update) phase, the actual data update is carried out in a manner that temporarily preserves two views of the data being updated. One view is the old (pre-update) data state that is maintained for the benefit of read operations that may have been referencing the data concurrently with the update. The other view is the new (post-update) data state that is seen by operations that access the data following the update. In the second (deferred update) phase, the old data state is removed following a “grace period” that is long enough to ensure that the first group of read operations will no longer maintain references to the pre-update data. The second-phase update operation typically comprises freeing a stale data element to reclaim its memory. In certain RCU implementations, the second-phase update operation may comprise something else, such as changing an operational state according to the first-phase update.
FIGS. 1A-1D illustrate the use of read-copy update to modify a data element B in a group of data elements A, B and C. The data elements A, B, and C are arranged in a singly-linked list that is traversed in acyclic fashion, with each element containing a pointer to a next element in the list (or a NULL pointer for the last element) in addition to storing some item of data. A global pointer (not shown) is assumed to point to data element A, the first member of the list. Persons skilled in the art will appreciate that the data elements A, B and C can be implemented using any of a variety of conventional programming constructs, including but not limited to, data structures defined by C-language “struct” variables. Moreover, the list itself is a type of data structure.
It is assumed that the data element list of FIGS. 1A-1D is traversed (without locking) by multiple readers and occasionally updated by updaters that delete, insert or modify data elements in the list. In FIG. 1A, the data element B is being referenced by a reader r1, as shown by the vertical arrow below the data element. In FIG. 1B, an updater u1 wishes to update the linked list by modifying data element B. Instead of simply updating this data element without regard to the fact that r1 is referencing it (which might crash r1), u1 preserves B while generating an updated version thereof (shown in FIG. 1C as data element B′) and inserting it into the linked list. This is done by u1 acquiring an appropriate lock (to exclude other updaters), allocating new memory for B′, copying the contents of B to B′, modifying B′ as needed, updating the pointer from A to B so that it points to B′, and releasing the lock. In current versions of the Linux® kernel, pointer updates performed by updaters can be implemented using the rcu_assign_pointer( ) primitive. As an alternative to locking during the update operation, other techniques such as non-blocking synchronization or a designated update thread could be used to serialize data updates. All subsequent (post update) readers that traverse the linked list, such as the reader r2, will see the effect of the update operation by encountering B′ as they dereference B's pointer. On the other hand, the old reader r1 will be unaffected because the original version of B and its pointer to C are retained. Although r1 will now be reading stale data, there are many cases where this can be tolerated, such as when data elements track the state of components external to the computer system (e.g., network connectivity) and must tolerate old data because of communication delays. In current versions of the Linux® kernel, pointer dereferences performed by readers can be implemented using the rcu_dereference( ) primitive.
At some subsequent time following the update, r1 will have continued its traversal of the linked list and moved its reference off of B. In addition, there will be a time at which no other reader process is entitled to access B. It is at this point, representing an expiration of the grace period referred to above, that u1 can free B, as shown in FIG. 1D.
FIGS. 2A-2C illustrate the use of read-copy update to delete a data element B in a singly-linked list of data elements A, B and C. As shown in FIG. 2A, a reader r1 is assumed be currently referencing B and an updater u1 wishes to delete B. As shown in FIG. 2B, the updater u1 updates the pointer from A to B so that A now points to C. In this way, r1 is not disturbed but a subsequent reader r2 sees the effect of the deletion. As shown in FIG. 2C, r1 will subsequently move its reference off of B, allowing B to be freed following the expiration of a grace period.
In the context of the read-copy update mechanism, a grace period represents the point at which all running tasks (e.g., processes, threads or other work) having access to a data element guarded by read-copy update have passed through a “quiescent state” in which they can no longer maintain references to the data element, assert locks thereon, or make any assumptions about data element state. By convention, for operating system kernel code paths, a context switch, an idle loop, and user mode execution all represent quiescent states for any given CPU running non-preemptible code (as can other operations that will not be listed here). The reason for this is that a non-preemptible kernel will always complete a particular operation (e.g., servicing a system call while running in process context) prior to a context switch. In preemptible operating system kernels, additional steps are needed to account for readers that were preempted within their RCU read-side critical sections. In current RCU implementations designed for the Linux® kernel, a blocked reader task list is maintained to track such readers. A grace period will only end when the blocked task list indicates that is safe to do so because all blocked readers associated with the grace period have exited their RCU read-side critical sections. Other techniques for tracking blocked readers may also be used, but tend to require more read-side overhead than the current blocked task list method.
In FIG. 3, four tasks 0, 1, 2, and 3 running on four separate CPUs are shown to pass periodically through quiescent states (represented by the double vertical bars). The grace period (shown by the dotted vertical lines) encompasses the time frame in which all four tasks that began before the start of the grace period have passed through one quiescent state. If the four tasks 0, 1, 2, and 3 were reader tasks traversing the linked lists of FIGS. 1A-1D or FIGS. 2A-2C, none of these tasks having reference to the old data element B prior to the grace period could maintain a reference thereto following the grace period. All post grace period searches conducted by these tasks would bypass B by following the updated pointers created by the updater.
Grace periods may be synchronous or asynchronous. According to the synchronous technique, an updater performs the first phase update operation, invokes an RCU primitive such as synchronize_rcu( ) to advise when all current RCU readers have completed their RCU critical sections and the grace period has ended, blocks (waits) until the grace period has completed, and then implements the second phase update operation, such as by removing stale data. According to the asynchronous technique, an updater performs the first phase update operation, specifies the second phase update operation as a callback using an RCU primitive such as call_rcu( ), then resumes other processing with the knowledge that the callback will eventually be processed at the end of a grace period. Advantageously, callbacks requested by one or more updaters can be batched (e.g., on callback lists) and processed as a group at the end of an asynchronous grace period. This allows the grace period overhead to be amortized over plural deferred update operations.
The length of an RCU grace period has performance implications. Although RCU can greatly improve the performance and latency of read-side accesses, it can in a number of cases degrade update-side accesses. This is a design choice: the purpose of RCU is to improve read-side performance in read-mostly situations. In addition, on the update side there is a trade-off between grace-period latency and per-update overhead. Longer latencies allow the overhead of a single grace to be amortized over a larger number of updates, thereby reducing the per-update overhead. In addition, the longer-latency RCU grace-period primitives are typically more energy-efficient than are the expedited primitives, which must in some cases send IPIs to sleeping CPUs. The Linux Kernel®, which makes extensive use of RCU, is generally tuned to have relatively long grace-period latencies, although there are “expedited” primitives that can be used within the kernel to shift the trade-off towards high CPU overhead in favor of shorter latencies. However, there are times when a trade-off towards shorter RCU grace period latencies may be desirable, for example, during boot time or when starting some networking applications, such as the Wireshark™ network packet analyzer. Applicant submits that it would be particularly beneficial for user mode execution to have a way of specifying RCU grace period latency to RCU, and for RCU to have a way of responding to this specification. Preferably, such an approach would have the ability to correctly handle overlapping specifications from different user mode tools and use cases.